Ledesma vs. Climaco, GR No. 12815, June 28, 1974
Subject: Basic Legal Ethics
FACTS
Adelino
H. Ledesma, a lawyer, was appointed by the Commission on Elections as Election
Registrar of Silay City, Negros Occidental. Ledesma was also appointed as
counsel de oficio for two accused in a criminal case pending before the Court
of First Instance of Negros Occidental, Branch I, Silay City.
Ledesma
filed a motion with the trial court to be allowed to withdraw as counsel de
oficio, alleging that he was not in a position to devote full time to the
defense of the two accused due to his appointment as Election Registrar. The
trial court denied Ledesma's motion, and Ledesma filed a petition for
certiorari with the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether
or not Atty. Ledesma should be allowed to withdraw as counsel de officio
considering his appointment as Election Registrar.
RULING
No.
Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. It could be that
for some lawyers, especially the neophytes in the profession, being appointed
counsel de oficio is an irksome chore. The law is a profession, not a trade or
a craft. Those enrolled in its ranks are called upon to aid in the performance of one of the
basic purposes of the State, the
administration of justice.
In this case the Supreme Court reiterated that there was no incompatibility between Atty. Ledesma’s duty as counsel de oficio and the performance of his task as an election registrar of the COMELEC. To avoid any frustration thereof, especially in the case of an indigent defendant, a lawyer may be required to act as counsel de oficio.
No comments:
Post a Comment